ABC is refusing paid ads for its health care program at the White House. Thus they’re refusing even a paid-for alternative viewpoint.

We requested the rates to buy a 60 second network spot immediately preceding the broadcast of the Town Hall meeting. We would have produced a spot specifically for this program.

Here is statement from Rick Scott, chairman of Conservatives for Patients Rights.

“It is unfortunate – and unusual – that ABC is refusing to accept paid advertising that would present an alternative viewpoint for the White House health care event. Health care is an issue that touches every American and all potential pieces of legislation have carried a pricetag in excess of $1 trillion of taxpayers’ money. The American people deserve a healthy, robust debate on this issue and ABC’s decision – as of now – to exclude even paid advertisements that present an alternative view does a disservice to the public. Our organization is more than willing to purchase ad time on ABC to present an alternative viewpoint and our hope is that ABC will reconsider having such viewpoints be part of this crucial debate for the American people. We were surprised to hear that paid advertisements would not be accepted when we inquired and we would certainly be open to purchasing time if ABC would reconsider.”

Not to be outdone by bowing Brian Williams’ fawning White House slobberfest, Charlie Gibson and ABC News will be broadcasting live from the White House for an entire evening pushing Barack Obama’s steath Socialist health care plan, capping an entire day of such coverage, with no opposing views presented.

From Drudge:

On the night of June 24, the media and government become one, when ABC turns its programming over to President Obama and White House officials to push government run health care — a move that has ignited an ethical firestorm!

Highlights on the agenda:

ABCNEWS anchor Charlie Gibson will deliver WORLD NEWS from the Blue Room of the White House.

The network plans a primetime special — ‘Prescription for America’ — originating from the East Room, exclude [sic] opposing voices on the debate. [read more]

Republicans heard about the special coverage ABC was affording Obama and requested that Republicans be allowed to present their views as well. ABC rejected their request outright (emphasis mine):

Dear Mr. Westin:

As the national debate on health care reform intensifies, I am deeply concerned and disappointed with ABC’s astonishing decision to exclude opposing voices on this critical issue on June 24, 2009. Next Wednesday, ABC News will air a primetime health care reform “town hall” at the White House with President Barack Obama. In addition, according to an ABC News report, GOOD MORNING AMERICA, WORLD NEWS, NIGHTLINE and ABC’s web news “will all feature special programming on the president’s health care agenda.” This does not include the promotion, over the next 9 days, the president’s health care agenda will receive on ABC News programming.

Today, the Republican National Committee requested an opportunity to add our Party’s views to those of the President’s to ensure that all sides of the health care reform debate are presented. Our request was rejected. I believe that the President should have the ability to speak directly to the America people. However, I find it outrageous that ABC would prohibit our Party’s opposing thoughts and ideas from this national debate, which affects millions of ABC viewers.

In the absence of opposition, I am concerned this event will become a glorified infomercial to promote the Democrat agenda. If that is the case, this primetime infomercial should be paid for out of the DNC coffers. President Obama does not hold a monopoly on health care reform ideas or on free airtime. The President has stated time and time again that he wants a bipartisan debate. Therefore, the Republican Party should be included in this primetime event, or the DNC should pay for your airtime.

Respectfully,
Ken McKay
Republican National Committee
Chief of Staff

ABC responded basically, “Nu uh! We’ll be TOTALLY fair and critical and stuff — you know, like we were during the election! But no, we don’t want to hear anything any Republicans have to say”:

…ABC News prides itself on covering all sides of important issues and asking direct questions of all newsmakers — of all political persuasions — even when others have taken a more partisan approach and even in the face of criticism from extremes on both ends of the political spectrum. ABC News is looking for the most thoughtful and diverse voices on this issue. ABC News alone will select those who will be in the audience asking questions of the president. Like any programs we broadcast, ABC News will have complete editorial control. To suggest otherwise is quite unfair to both our journalists and our audience. [read more] [via Michelle Malkin]

Notice they say, “direct questions” not “tough” questions, not “critical” questions, but direct questions. “Why is your plan so awesome?” is a direct question. “Can I have your autograph” is another direct question. Direct questions are not necessarily helpful or even relevant.

And while they are looking for the most, “thoughtful and diverse voices,” they still won’t allow any Republicans the opportunity to counter Obama’s pitch. Nor have they announced any plans to hold a primetime town hall meeting where audience members will be able to ask questions about Republican health care proposals.

I suspect they would cancel the Republican response to the State of the Union if they thought they could get away with it.

In order to feign a sense of objectivity, they will allow some audience members to ask pre-approved questions that sound somewhat critical, but that the president is more than prepared to answer. But there will be no truly tough questions, there will be no follow ups, and Obama’s plan which is designed to drive the private industry out of business, will come off as the perfect cure to everything that ails American health care. Americans will believe that is actually will cut costs, improve care, keep their personal coverage safe, and probably promote world peace. None of which it will do.

Orwell’s Ministry of Truth actualized.

Perhaps a new slogan is in order as well… “More Americans get their unadulterated propaganda from ABC News than from anywhere else.”

In any event, Saddam’s response was telling. Just two days after Operation Desert Fox ended he dispatched one of his top intelligence operatives, Faruq Hijazi, to Afghanistan to meet with bin Laden. As I and others have written, Hijazi was no low-level flunky. He was one of Saddam’s most trusted goons and was responsible for overseeing a good deal of the regime’s terrorist and other covert activities. It was this meeting that led to widespread reporting on the relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda. I collected a bunch of these reports, including the ABC News report, in “The Four-Day War.” Another, earlier piece also discusses Saddam’s conspicuous response to Operation Desert Fox.

The consensus in the media then was that there was a relationship between the two and that Saddam’s regime was very willing to work with al Qaeda against their common foe: America. And vice versa. Indeed, the reporting indicated that they had been working together even long before Operation Desert Fox…. [Read the rest]

Has anyone noticed ABC airing this report since we invaded Iraq? And why the hell haven’t they!? Where the hell was this report during the Senate Intelligence Committee hearings??

An excellent measure of just what a powder-puff, love-fest, cake-walk Obama has been given thus far. If he chokes this badly under mild media pressure, perhaps he won’t be as difficult to defeat as I feared.

Riiiiiight! John McCain leads both Democrats in national polls, but the military, which has a long history of being much more conservative than the general public, and which backed Bush by approximately 73% to 18% over Kerry in 2004, is suddenly gangbusters for the candidates that want to surrender Iraq to terrorists and Iranian-backed militias. Forgive me if I don’t buy it.

One of the first rules of journalism is that anecdotes prove nothing. One of the first rules of propaganda is to use anecdotes to portray what the facts don’t.